Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

[FoxEye]

Are you similarly impressed by shiny things? What a stupid comment. If anything he's come across slimey and selfish - like most politicians.

That's your tory bias speaking.

 

[meghatronic]

That's your tory bias speaking.

My Tory bias died when David decided to form a coalition. Not that that's a bad thing, but I can no longer see things solely in the parties interest. He is a slimeball - he looks and acts like a priest.

 

[Sankari]

Brown returned to London yesterday.

Great! He's arrived just in time to be sacked.

 

[meghatronic]

I suspect (you read it hear first folks), that Labour, LibDem, Plaid Cymru and SNP will form a coalition, and I quote, "in the national interest" to have a strong broad government. Sadly, that isn't England's interest

 

[Captain_Slick]

Great! He's arrived just in time to be sacked.

He cannot be sacked.

 

[Sankari]

He cannot be sacked.

Sure he can. The party has the power to replace him with anyone they like, and the Queen has the power to dismiss him regardless of his party's feelings on the subject.

 

[Sankari]

Are you similarly impressed by shiny things? What a stupid comment. If anything he's come across slimey and selfish - like most politicians.

If putting your nation's interests first is "selfish", then yes, the Cleggster is selfish.

 

[Captain_Slick]

Sure he can. The party has the power to replace him with anyone they like, and the Queen has the power to dismiss him regardless of how his party's feelings on the subject.

Wrong.

The party can replace him as the leader of the party, not as PM.

The Queen has no powers of dismissal. The powers of royal perogative were passed to the PM a long time ago. The only power she has is because she is the Queen and would garner a lot of support, but in reality she has no real power. Her 'powers' of parliamentary dissolution are simply tradition.

Note this is not to say he could stay there forever. He wouldn't. Action would be taken by MPs in consultation with the Crown (not the Queen).

 

[meghatronic]

If putting your nation's interests first is "selfish", then yes, the Cleggster is selfish.

If Nick Clegg was in Labour's shoe's, would he want PR? No. Would he balls.

Also, I don't want STV PR, over half the nation don't want it. It's his interest, not the nation's. It isn't a big issue.

 

[div0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...ortional-representation-general-election-2010

Open the googledocs spread and go to the 'results under PR' tab.

Thanks for the link - as a comparison, from your original BBC link, the 2005 numbers would have been:

	 	 CON 	 LAB 	 LIB 	 Other

FPTP: TOTALS	 198	 355	 62	 31
AV: TOTALS	 175	 366	 74	 31
STV: TOTALS	 200	 263	 147	 36

I couldn't get the google docs spread to open, as the link kept timing out. But I think the following is the same info (just taken from a table in your link):

	 	 CON 	 LAB 	 LIB 	 SNP	  PC 	 Other

FPTP: TOTALS	 307	 258	 57	 6	 3	 19
AV: TOTALS	 281	 262	 79	 5	 3	 20
STV: TOTALS	 246	 207	 162	 13	 4	 18

Pretty much shows the trends I'd have expected from an AV system.

 

[Cosimo]

If putting your nation's interests first is "selfish", then yes, the Cleggster is selfish.

It doesn’t make him a statesman and all he is doing is putting "his" interest first.

 

[chriscpritchard]

If Nick Clegg was in Labour's shoe's, would he want PR? No. Would he balls.

Also, I don't want STV PR, over half the nation don't want it. It's his interest, not the nation's. It isn't a big issue.

48% wanted STV, and only 39% wanted FPTP... Also, PR is a pretty fundamental part of most Liberal Democrats' views!

 

[Sankari]

It doesn’t make him a statesman and all he is doing is putting "his" interest first.

Clegg has listed four key issues as central to a Lib Dem/Tory coalition. One of those (electoral reform) is obviously in his interest as well as the nation's. The other three are definitely in the nation's interests and cannot be dismissed as policies that would only benefit Clegg.

If Nick Clegg was in Labour's shoe's, would he want PR? No. Would he balls.

Of course he wouldn't. Labour has a vested interest in ensuring that the voting system remains as unfair as possible.

Also, I don't want STV PR, over half the nation don't want it. It's his interest, not the nation's. It isn't a big issue.

I don't know where you're getting "over half the nation doesn't want it" (did I miss the referendum?) and AFAIK, STV PR isn't the only option on the table.

Wrong.

The party can replace him as the leader of the party, not as PM.

OK, I stand corrected.

The Queen has no powers of dismissal. The powers of royal perogative were passed to the PM a long time ago. The only power she has is because she is the Queen and would garner a lot of support, but in reality she has no real power. Her 'powers' of parliamentary dissolution are simply tradition.

The Queen does have the power to remove the Prime Minister, whether directly or via an authorised agent. This prerogative can also be exercised unilaterally by any of her empowered representatives.

Case in point: Sir John Kerr (Governor General) vs. Gough Whitlam (Prime Minister) in 1975. Kerr removed Whitlam from office and installed a caretaker government with Malcolm Fraser as temporary PM.

 

[PMKeates]

The Queen does have the power to remove the Prime Minister[/url], whether directly or via an authorised agent. This prerogative can also be exercised unilaterally by any of her empowered representatives.

Case in point: Sir John Kerr (Governor General) vs. Gough Whitlam (Prime Minister) in 1975. Kerr removed Whitlam from office and installed a caretaker government with Malcolm Fraser as temporary PM.

I think we are dealing with the semantics of power vs. authority. The Queen has the power to do very little, but she has the authority to do almost anything she wants.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Also, I don't want STV PR, over half the nation don't want it. It's his interest, not the nation's. It isn't a big issue.

With respect, how do you know how much of the nation wants PR? Of course it's in the nation's interests to have a fully proportional system, otherwise peoples votes are effectively rendered useless.

It is a big issue. But that said, it's not the biggest issue.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

I've read on The Times that rumours abound that Gordon Brown is going to make an announcement shortly. Standby, Standby

 

[meghatronic]

Of course he wouldn't. Labour has a vested interest in ensuring that the voting system remains as unfair as possible.

This was my point - it is in Clegg's (and LibDem's) PERSONAL interest. Why do you not concede this?

I don't know where you're getting "over half the nation doesn't want it" (did I miss the referendum?) and AFAIK, STV PR isn't the only option on the table.

With respect, how do you know how much of the nation wants PR? Of course it's in the nation's interests to have a fully proportional system, otherwise peoples votes are effectively rendered useless.

STV PR is what LibDems want, AFAIK. And I was making the rather unscientific link that LabCon = 65.1% = FPTP support. That's the biggest sample size we have for now, surveys of 1000s - as we know - are very errorsome.

It is a big issue. But that said, it's not the biggest issue.

Your latter point is my point. RIGHT NOW it isn't in the national interest to whine about PR. See my Telegraph link here.

Case in point: Sir John Kerr (Governor General) vs. Gough Whitlam (Prime Minister) in 1975. Kerr removed Whitlam from office and installed a caretaker government with Malcolm Fraser as temporary PM.

I'm on my phone so can't be bothered checking, but there is a nice quote like "We say God save the Queen because no one can save the Governor General".

 

[avec]

48% wanted STV, and only 39% wanted FPTP... Also, PR is a pretty fundamental part of most Liberal Democrats' views!

..and 90% probably don't know the detailed differences between any of the systems.

 

[meghatronic]

..and 90% probably don't know the detailed differences between any of the systems.

I would argue more than that.

To self quote ():

That is why I think it should be a key issue, just definiely not the top one or two. Every day this goes on is damaging the country.

The problem with a referendum is:


I rang my mum and asked her (she's got life smarts ) if she'd like 'proportional representation'. She said "yes, it's fairer". I asked why, and she said as it's "proportional"... that was all she could tell me, she couldn't tell me anything about it/pros/cons. The name alone gives it inherant biases.

If you and I (and I could do with a trip) polled 10000s of people - 99% of them wouldn't be able to tell us pros/cons. They want what they're told to want and the left press and LD are shouting about it. I can't remember the last time PR was such an issue - certainly not in my lifetime. A straight forward yes or no question - only really what you can have on a referndum - is borderline dangerous. Just as dangerous as a leave EU vs. stay in EU. Such a large topic reduced to a binary question.

Good bit from Nick Robinson:

The Lib Dems face a stark choice, says the BBC's Nick Robinson. An arrangement with the Tories which does not deliver electoral reform, but does produce a stable government committed to introducing some Lib Dem priorities. The fear many Lib Dems have is that they'd be tainted by association with the Tories, who could call a snap election at a moment's notice. The other option is a coalition with Labour with seats in cabinet, a pledge to change the voting system and a promise that Gordon Brown will not be around for ever. The fear here is that they will be harmed by the allegation that they have created a "coalition of the losers" which could collapse long before it could deliver electoral reform.

 

[Sankari]

This was my point - it is in Clegg's (and LibDem's) PERSONAL interest. Why do you not concede this?

I've already said it's in his interest (though I believe it is also in the national interest). His other three key issues are very much in the national interest, so you can hardly dismiss him as "selfish" on the basis of a single preference that he probably won't even get under a Lib Dem/Tory coalition.

Your latter point is my point. RIGHT NOW it isn't in the national interest to whine about PR. See my Telegraph link here.

I can hardly think of a better time to raise electoral reform. The recent failure of the current system makes it clear that this is very much in the national interest.

I'm on my phone so can't be bothered checking, but there is a nice quote like "We say God save the Queen because no one can save the Governor General".

It's from Whitlam. The exact quote is "Well might we say 'God save the Queen', because nothing can save the Governor-General." Whitlam spoke these words on the steps of Parliament House shortly after his humiliating dismissal. Just over a month later, he was comprehensively thrashed in a federal election which endorsed Malcolm Fraser as PM and totally vindicated Kerr's decision. It was the greatest defeat in Australian political history.